From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cestmir Kalina <ckalina@redhat.com>,
Alex Gladkov <agladkov@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Enable unbound cpumask update on ordered workqueues
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:07:40 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zb0hXLDlXmfmn_Yw@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zb0CU2OrTCv457Wo@localhost.localdomain>
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:55:15PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Indeed. I believe this is what my 3/4 [1] was trying to cure, though. I
> still think that with current code the new_attr->cpumask gets first
> correctly initialized considering unbound_cpumask
>
> apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> wqattrs_actualize_cpumask(new_attrs, unbound_cpumask);
>
> but then overwritten further below using cpu_possible_mask
>
> apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
>
> operation that I honestly seem to still fail to grasp why we need to do.
> :)
So, imagine the following scenario on a system with four CPUs:
1. Initially both wq_unbound_cpumask and wq A's cpumask are 0xf.
2. wq_unbound_cpumask is set to 0x3. A's effective is 0x3.
3. A's cpumask is set to 0xe, A's effective is 0x3.
4. wq_unbound_cpumask is restore to 0xf. A's effective should become 0xe.
The reason why we're saving what user requested rather than effective is to
be able to do #4 so that the effective is always what's currently allowed
from what the user specified for the workqueue.
Now, if you want the current effective cpumask, that always coincides with
the workqueue's dfl_pwq's __pod_cpumask and if you look at the current
wq/for-6.9 branch, that's accessible through unbound_effective_cpumask()
helper.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-02 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-30 18:33 Waiman Long
2024-01-30 18:33 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] workqueue: Skip __WQ_DESTROYING workqueues when updating global unbound cpumask Waiman Long
2024-01-30 18:33 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] workqueue: Break out __queue_work_rcu_locked() from __queue_work() Waiman Long
2024-01-30 18:33 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] workqueue: Enable unbound cpumask update on ordered workqueues Waiman Long
2024-01-31 17:00 ` Tejun Heo
2024-01-31 17:02 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-31 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] " Juri Lelli
2024-01-31 15:31 ` Waiman Long
2024-02-01 10:18 ` Juri Lelli
2024-02-01 14:28 ` Waiman Long
2024-02-02 14:55 ` Juri Lelli
2024-02-02 17:07 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2024-02-02 19:03 ` Waiman Long
2024-02-05 6:30 ` Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zb0hXLDlXmfmn_Yw@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=agladkov@redhat.com \
--cc=ckalina@redhat.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®